ELPA21: The Road Ahead NCSA June 20, 2016

Update 2015-16 was the first operational year for ELPA21 8 of the member states administered ELPA21 this year Each state procured their test delivery, scoring and reporting vendor Two vendors (AIR and Questar) delivered the test Cut scores setting will occur this summer Management of the consortium and the assessment is transitioning from CCSSO to CRESST The logistics of large scale paper delivery were problematic for a test that was designed to be exclusively online (except for needed accommodations)

ELPA21 Theory of Action elpa21.org Core Beliefs, reflecting the guiding principles of the ELP standards: ELLs are a heterogeneous group, with physical, social, emotional, and/or cognitive differences, representing diverse social, educational, and cultural backgrounds. While they learn language at varying rates, all ELLs have the same potential as non-ELLs, and their diverse backgrounds are valuable resources for learning. All ELLs are capable of making and demonstrating progress toward English language proficiency, and benefit from scaffolded instruction and language development services. ELLs must acquire discipline-specific language practices that enable them to produce, interpret, and effectively collaborate on content-related grade-appropriate tasks. ELLs benefit from new technology and with the appropriate supports and accommodations, can make and demonstrate continual progress in the use of language. An additive not deficit approach High expectations, not unreasonable What it takes to participate in today’s classrooms

Lessons Learned Accessibility & Accommodations Intended accessibility features and accommodations (A&A) were not always realized (e.g., turning off universal features) Be clear in setting expectations for test delivery Accessible braille forms that included manipulatives were difficult to create and implement Reduce need for manipulatives for braille forms

Vendor platforms could not always deliver what was specified. Lessons Learned – part 2 Vendor platforms could not always deliver what was specified. QTI/APIP are standards in process Do not guarantee interoperability Different vendors implemented the A&A in different ways Require demos before contract with vendors

The actual student use of A&A was not logged by the system Lessons Learned – part 3 The actual student use of A&A was not logged by the system Underscore importance of documenting the delivery of these features to students Loss of opportunity

Questions for the group Which accessibility and accommodations features are working well for your consortium? Where are the places (platform, manuals, documentation) your consortium needs to make adjustments? What types of features are universal in your system? Where do we (providers/vendors) need of improvement to better accommodate students with disabilities?

Learn More Visit www.ELPA21.org Facebook: ELPA21 Twitter: @ELPA21Assess Email: communications@elpa21.org wesbruce3@gmail.com